So, Who Likes This Ron Paul Campaign Ad About "Securing our borders"?

He's a "veteran with a plan"!

This campaign theme is nothing new:

Reason on Ron Paul here; on immigration here.

Comments

[kilroy]

+ 1 dislike.

[Kristen]

I suppose from a purely marketing perspective it will have great appeal to Joe Sixpack, but I don't like either of them. Ad #1 is a little more to my liking, but only the parts about stopping policing the world.

[Joe M]

Kochtopus!

[?]

I've heard that Ron Paul is a Republican, and it's Republicans who actually vote for him, because that's what he is.

No source, but...

[Warty]

Idiots need to be pandered to too, I guess.

[Res Publica Americana]

He should start making grandiose ads, like that Rick Perry one -- that was a kick-ass ad, it's just too bad the guy it was made for blows

[Res Publica Americana]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kTZboZlAck

This ad

[capitol l]

Nativists vote McLaughlin!

[gaijin97]

The scene at 26 seconds was hot.

[Scruffy Nerfherder]

Rick-rolling bastard

[Lost_In_Translation]

Astley 2012!!

He's never gonna give you up
He's NEVER going to run around
and most of all He's never going to hurt you.

[SIV]

Seems like a good ad. Lots of conservatives like Ron Paul on most issues but part ways on national defense.
He should be more vocal about defending the country so he doesn't get dismissed as a "peace creep".

[Joe M]

Actually, my feeling is Paul is letting people fill in the blank on exactly what "protecting our borders" really means.

[Res Publica Americana]

I hope to God Paul stars pandering to any and every single group in this country -- anything to get elected -- and then turns around and tells them all to go fuck themselves. Epic, that would be.

[Matt]

If you really pay attention to this ad, it's not saying much. It's pretty broad, I think it's basically just Ron trying to tell the GOP base "hey, I believe in national defense too!"

[kinnath]

"Securing the borders" means whatever the listener wants it to means. Standard political practice.

[EDG reppin' LBC]

Intentionally ambiguous wording. "Protect Our Borders" means whatever you think it means. Unfortunately, we still don't know what it means to Dr. Paul.

[BakedPenguin]

Well, it's a good line to use, since bringing troops home doesn't go against it.

[Juice]

I don't have a border, do you?

[Che is dead]

Could you not have a border in some third world shit hole please. Why is that you "no borders" assholes always take up residence in first world nations?

[Rachel Maddow]

Dr. Ron Paul,

In a libertarian world, how would the free market protect us from Beaners?

[cynical]

Unskilled American workers (high school dropouts, humanities majors, etc.), stripped of the social safety net, would work for such incredibly low wages that hiring Mexicans wouldn't be worth it.

[Pro Libertate]

The easiest way to solve immigration problems is to expand our borders to encompass the entire globe. Everyone is now an American! Simple!

[Imperialist]

This is what I've been saying for a few years now. Canada first, then work our way down to the southern tip of South America.

[robc]

From sea to shining seas, from Boffin Bay to Tierra del Fuego.

[Imperialist]

Yes, I remember someone coming up with this last time (was it you?)

[Proprietrist]

This is the sort of thing that makes Gary Johnson significantly better for me. Honestly, I wish Ron Paul wasn't in the race this year because Gary Johnson wouldn't be ignored by the media as a redundancy (even though he is different from Paul on many issues - like this one). They're fighting for the same limited constituency in the GOP, but Johnson has far more appeal to independents and liberals -- he's even more politically in line with the youth vote than Paul is, but Paul fans are unwavering. It's understandable, but I wouldn't be surprised if Johnson would have been a front-runner without Paul in the race. I'm just still baffled why the media determined Johnson had no chance and proceeded to ignore him completely. Paul's name recognition and control of the libertarian real estate seems to be the most logical answer.

[Apatheist]

" Johnson has far more appeal to independents and liberals -- he's even more politically in line with the youth vote than Paul is"

This is contrary to the fact that Paul routinely polls over 10% and Johnson has trouble breaking 1%. As I learned from the '08 Paul campaign, this can't be all blamed on "the media." The fact is that Paul currently has a bigger and more dedicated following not to mention much strong fundraising ability.

There certainly are ways that Johnson is better than Paul but from a purely electoral standpoint Paul is better. However, they both are going to lose so it really doesn't matter.

[Sidd Finch]

Most of that guy's comments are complete fantasy. Any relationship with objective facts is completely accidental.

[Proprietrist]

Actually it's not contrary at all. Polls are generally monitoring likely primary voters, liberals and non-Republican-leaning independents are likely excluded from these polls.

Moreover, no one knows who he is because the media treats him like a non-entity. Very few Republicans know who he is, much less independents and liberals.

There's no question Ron Paul's success is based in his grass roots campaign, and Gary Johnson is essentially seeking the same ground/base. And I don't disagree that Johnson's campaign has failed to convince most Paul supporters to abandon Paul for him, a Herculean task regardless.

My point is that if Paul was not in the race, and assuming most of these Paul supporters would go for Johnson, the media could not ignore Johnson's support -- and he would reach a much wider audience than Paul would. Paul's following is the most devoted in politics, but I'd say more limited due to his past affiliations, age, approach, the unquestioning personality cultish nature of his fanbase, and lack of executive experience.

[Proportionalist]

I like the taste of Johnson's johnson better than Ron's rod.

[Jah]

If the media can ignore Paul's support, surely they can do the same to Johnson's. How much wider of an audience can you reach than liberty, anti-war and fiscal responsibility as core messages? Seems to me that he needs to "reach" the current establishment rather than a wider audience. In a modern sense of the word, Ron Paul epitomizes "disruption". The supposed limitations that you (and the author) listed are all false or irrelevant.

[JL]

right. Gary "control it, regulate it, tax it" Johnson, is a libertarian hero.

[Proprietrist]

By that standard Ron "free markets, except for labor" Paul, who is ok with letting states violate fundamental rights, is too.

Legal things are inherently regulated (the producers are disincentivized to commit fraud or violate rights) and taxed (like all other items for sale are). Advocating equal legal treatment for one product to another is not the same thing as advocating for more taxes and regulation.

[Matt]

Please read between the lines here. Obviously the guy needs to establish national security credentials in a GOP primary. So he's trying to look tough in this ad. The "24"-style graphics are a bit much, but doesn't it make sense to focus on securing our own borders instead of nations a half a world away? People might disagree, but at least it makes more sense to do that than fight wars in countries halfway around that world.

[Matt]

FWIW I do prefer Johnson's immigration stance to Paul's. Unfortunately Johnson's being excluded yet again from the next GOP debate. I guess the dog joke just wasn't good enough.

[Len]

Immigration is fine, once you get rid of forced redistribution. Then who cares so long as rights, particularly property rights are what government makes laws to protect and enforces through a justice system.

[TycheSD]

Iagree that this is Ron's way of establishing national security credentials.

[Almanian]

Whatever

[Not an immigrant]

Anyone remember him saying or being accused of saying " we need a wall to keep us in"?

[Jon Schaffer`s Right Hand]

He said a wall built to keep them out could be used to keep us in. It was an argument against a wall.

The fact that "serious" candidates have to debate building physical walls around our borders makes me depressed.

[BigT]

You forget flag burning'controversy'?

[R C Dean]

Certainly a fundamental function of any sovereign state is securing its borders.

So, I got no problem with this, at the 30,000 foot level.

To the extent he means "ours, not everybody else's", I'm good with that.

To the extent he means "closing our borders to immigration", well, the devil is in the details there. If the border is closed to criminals, the diseased, and those seeking handouts, I'm good. Law-abiding worker bees should be welcome, and are by no means ruled out by "secure borders."

[kinnath]

yup

[robc]

what he said.

[zeroentitlement]

+1

There are differences between immigrants, freeloaders, and criminals.

I have no problem with Ron Paul's ads, regardless of their vagueness (he's only got 30 seconds, what do you want?) and saw nothing racist whatsoever about them. *shrug* It's no more racist to demand that people who come here do so lawfully than it is for countries that I visit to make me obtain a visa, go through customs, and/or get my passport stamped.

[James Anderson Merritt]

"It's no more racist to demand that people who come here do so lawfully than it is for countries that I visit to make me obtain a visa, go through customs, and/or get my passport stamped."

Sadly, it is because all the other countries of the world, particularly those in Europe, forced people to get visas and carry travel papers that we followed suit. It is hard for me to believe in "American exceptionalism" when we turn our back on the idea whenever it suits us and our xenophobia or our socialism-envy.

The only valid point of a passport is to be able to qualify for one's own nation's protection when traveling in foreign lands. In the US, you shouldn't need a passport to enter (or re-enter) the country and stay as long as you like. If you are subsequently proven to be a threat to the country, then we certainly have the right to deport you and secure our border against you. But up until that point, it is downright unamerican to require "travel papers" of anyone, or to refuse entry arbitrarily, without good cause and due process. I'm sorry that some people who ought to know better harbor, or pander to, protectionist sentiments. I deeply resent having to prove a "right to work" in the country of my birth, out of someone else's fear that a poor person will sneak across the border and try to make life better for himself and dependents. We have let our fear and hatred of "the other" empower our government to diminish OUR OWN freedoms! That is the very demonstration of cutting off one's nose to spite one's face, and I am sick and tired of it. If you want to live in the land of the free, you have to be one of the brave. Cowards ought to move elsewhere, where they will feel safe and "well cared for" by the local government.

[NAL]

Well said.

[Matt]

In order to get to the next level, Ron has to defeat the GOP political "boss" (ie get some hardcore GOP base to support him). It's like Mike Tyson's Punch Out -- sometimes you have to use different moves to beat different opponents before you get to fight Tyson.

[Joe M]

I could never beat Tyson.

[squishua]

I got the game after the deal with Tyson ended, so the big battle was with a white dude named "Mr. Dream" who had the exact same moves as Tyson. Took me at least a dozen tries to beat the fucker.

[Joe M]

I'm so glad we had this subject come up. I just remembered I loaned my copy of Wii Punch Out to my brother months ago. I'm gonna get that thing back and do some boxing this weekend!

[Ron]

I agree with some of the other commentors. This seems like an attempt to sound as tough as Ron can without actully lying about his position.

This is probably a result of his hiring professional campaign strategists this time around. My bet is they recommended he change his position entirely but he refused, and this is the best they could come up with without getting Paul's veto.

[Walt G]

Better a borders nut than an interventionist nut.

[Citizen Nothing]

True dat.

[BakedPenguin]

Yup.

[James Anderson Merritt]

Completely agree.

[Proprietrist]

If I remember right, weren't the immigration ads considered a big reason he did worse than expected in NH in 2008? They seemed out of place with the rest of his campaign, and especially in a place like NH, which is one of the furthest states from the most-complained-about border and one of the least-impacted by it.

[Citizen Nothing]

I'm a 100% open-borders guy, and that 2008 ad was odious, but I didn't really see anything wrong with the new ad. I actually kind of liked it.

[IQ Nothing]

Come On over for beers and snacks everyone. You can poke my bitch, too!

[ola]

Did his ad say "no more student visa's from terrorist nations"? Why is there an apostrophe in visas? Is it some signal to the libtards that he really doesn't mean it? Or is it a signal to the raciss out there? Or what? Awwww!

[kinnath]

Paul's anti-immigration ads in 2008 were bonkers and completely at odds with everything he said in person.

These ads are professional and fuzzy enough to allow the "customer" to read whatever they want into the ad without actually conflicting with Paul's other public pronouncements.

Given the importance of this topic with a big block of conservative caucus goers in Iowa, it is probably the best we could expect out of the campaign.

[John Thacker]

These ads are professional and fuzzy enough to allow the "customer" to read whatever they want into the ad without actually conflicting with Paul's other public pronouncements.

Kind of like his votes on trade!

Ron Paul is an elected politician. Better than 99%, but he does have to be a politician.

Then again, most of the American people either want to be lied to (witness all the "but secretly he doesn't mean this" comments about Paul, Obama, whomever) or imagine that other people are being lied to, or just have opinions I dislike.

So I'm never going to see a politician I agree with 100% that would actually win.

[Robert]

We cheat the other guy and pass the savings on to you.

[squishua]

Not my favorite ad, but I think the point is to let folks (especially the paranoid republican base) know that he believes in DEFENSE and is not planning to fire everyone in our military just because he will end the foreign adventurism and nation-building. Neocon assholes (but I repeat myself) like to portray Paul as a pacifist who would leave the country wide open to attacks from anyone and everyone.

The unfortunate situation is that we have hundreds of thousands of active duty military personnel thanks to TEH WAR ON TERROR, and we need to do something vaguely productive with them when they are back home, still active duty and spending there money HERE.

[kilroy]

Voted YES on building a fence along the Mexican border. (Sep 2006)

If he's just pandering for hard core GOP votes why is there no mention or even image of a fence? That's very popular in the GOP.

[squishua]

Ho hum.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....ata_player

[Res Publica Americana]

Seriously, though, no more Rick Rolls

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EL5Atp_vF0

THAT'S a good ad. It's powerful, it's larger-than-life, and it's generic and purposely ambiguous in the second half to appeal to as many people as possible. Paul should go apeshit-insane Founding Era-patriotic and make similarly lavish ads.

[Ren]

The first ad was only a little bit better, I will say I have to disagree with Mr.Pauls perspective on citizenship by birth.

Honestly a child can be born here and be a citizen, so all we need is a program for them to become a full fledged citizen when they turn 18 if we do some security related checks first.

Because the thing one thing people really want to eliminate is the anchor aspect of it, where the parents of the baby have to wait till their child turns 18, gets their citizenship and then files a petition to have their parents move over.

[HT]

I'd like to see Paul get elected by whatever gross political means necessary and take a dump on the capital, on live television after being sworn in. then tell it like it is. we all know he's an anarchist.

[Fist of Etiquette]

Interesting that there are only white people featured in this ad. Very interesting indeed.

[Some dude]

*raises hand*

[me]

Securing the borders is all well and good, but we really should make it easier for foreigners to come to US to work. What is a buck worth except what someone will do to make it? And these aliens are willing to work really really hard for it. I just don't get it, it's like they are bringing gold to our borders, and we don't want to let them in.

[yaymorelibertarianinfighting]

who likes matt welch? yes please guys lets keep fighting each other to see who is "more pure" than the other. That's so productive! look where it's gotten us! oh wait...

[TommyO]

Reading the majority of these comments brings to mind the disconnected mindset of privileged minor nobles sitting on stuffed chairs in the safety and comfort of their personal circumstances in some 18th century Parisian salon glibly postulating on state of the world affairs! Anyone who has taken the time to read Ron Paul's positions on foreign policy knows that he is a peace advocate ? but he is also a realist. Considering he has consistently called the shots on decades of American foreign debacles I would think should give him some credibility?

Oh, but I forgot most of you people aren't truly interested in solving real problems are you ? just belly aching about the status quo? I submit that many of you secretly don't want to have a viable liberty minded candidate in the White House because then "the eternal struggle would be over" and how would you define yourself without the struggle? Your entire identity is framed by your anti-establishment rhetoric and actually getting a president who cares about the rule of law and your personal liberties would clip your legitimacy to bitch about everything! I mean if the central government actually started serving the people ?what would you have to talk about in the salon?

Paul 2012 is the best chance to finally get a freedom minded POTUS with an honest record and sound ethics ? but THAT'S NOT ENOUGH for many of you ? is it?

Who needs you pathetic bunch of privileged brats anyway ? and yes, you know who you are! Go back to your stuffed chair you spoiled brats and EAT YOUR CAKE and bitch about "the man" between bites while the rest of us fight tyranny and work and sacrifice to try and salvaged our liberties and rights!

[Justin]

Amen TommyO

[Lost_In_Translation]

Dude...

[BigT]

Well said!

[Decentralized Improviser]

The only think I learned from this ad is that the Coast Guard will shift to the DoD once the DHS is abolished.

[Justin]

I seriously do not get some of you reason writers. I get that you want Gary Johnson. But is Ron Paul so bad in your eyes that you have to keep up with the crap? We get it, no one is perfect. Ron's not perfect. Gary's not perfect. But Gary isn't going to win this time, and Ron can despite what you think. Would you seriously prefer Obama or one of the other Republican nut cases just to spite Ron Paul? It is such an asinine position to take, and it is intellectually dishonest. Grow up already. The Cato/Reason crowd does not have to like the Rockwell/Mises/Rothbard crowd and vise versa, that's fine and part of being an adult. This immature snipping though? It just makes a magazine full of decent writers look dumb. Some of us get that you don't like Ron Paul, we hear you loud and clear. Can you now please move on from looking for such stupid and frankly weak reasons to make him look bad? He is clearly first or second choice for most of us. Stop trying to make him into no choice at all.

And Matt Welch, it is beyond weak and slightly lazy to just point back to an article you wrote years ago to make a point, especially when that point is not all that relevant to the current Ad you are referencing. These two ads are different, hopefully the Paul campaign learned from their mistake last time, and hopefully he changes his stance on a few things when it comes to immigration eventually, but if that is his worse problem then he is still lightyears better than almost anyone else.It is fallacious to just go "look! see, I told you years ago the old coot was racist and that's why he lost" when this ad is not the same and he is not racist. Is it possible for any of you at Reason to put aside your distaste for the man for a little while, or at least tell us who, besides freaking Gary Johnson, you would like to see win? Because frankly this is getting old and you are about to lose more readers. Not because we are "Paulites" but because you cant grow up.

[Lost_In_Translation]

Drink!!!

[Banged Turnip]

Exactly, these two ads are very different. The weak attempt to link the two is pathetic. I don't completely agree with Ron Paul on immigration, but I completely agree with him that most of the immigration problem is a welfare state problem. Fix that, and the immigration "problem" mostly disappears.

And the Reason infatuation with Gary Johnson is a little puzzling. Johnson is definitely better than the other candidates sans Ron Paul just because his threat to veto bills has some historical precedent. However, Johnson is a libertarian technocrat. He doesn't seem to base his beliefs in ideology. He seems to somehow wind up being a libertarian for technocratic efficiency reasons. He never argues on base principles. Johnson's stance on Guantanamo alone makes it difficult to support him.

[Proprietrist]

Welcome "Paultards". Just kidding. I agree with 80% of what Ron Paul says, which is good enough to get my vote if he is the nominee.

I will still unabashedly criticize him for the 20% I disagree with him on. In fact, I hold him to a higher standard than his opponents because those people aren't claiming to be libertarians so could not expected to consistently apply libertarian philosophy. Johnson may be more incrementalist than Paul, but he also indicates a better understanding of the tolerant nature of libertarianism than Paul, who is more of a constitutionalist than a libertarian, and thus is open to the possibility of states being less tolerant to individual rights.

[Len]

"the tolerant nature of libertarianism"?? WTF??

Just because I don't believe in a government legislating morality means that I somehow like oh say two guys who don't know what a penis and vagina are for. This is not toleration, but a regard for justice and rights, which are the proper provinces of government.

[Proprietrist]

I wonder if Paul would be ok with Texas upholding their sodomy law, since that's at the state level and thus not unconstitutional?

Oh yeah: he would. I don't give a fucking shit about federalism if the states are going to be more repressive than the Federal government.

[BigT]

States will change to adapt to the new reality. Paul is right. Without states as laboratories of democracy the US will devolve into just another socialist democracy.

[Proprietrist]

Ok, my point is that there's something of a difference between a federalist and a libertarian. Gary Johnson's a libertarian, Ron Paul's a constitutional federalist. I don't give a shit whether Texas is oppressing my rights or the federal government is oppressing my rights. Libertarians should stand up against all forms of oppression and government overreach. When a court knocks down a shitty law, it's supposed to be cause for celebration.

[State's Rights]

Wait, you mean exchanging local tyranny for federal tyranny isn't freedom?

[Steve for Ron Paul]

It is extremely unlikely that the states would revert to some 50's mentality because for the most part the people have evolved. And if they did revert, then you could choose to stay and change that or move to another state. States rights where each state is an experiment is a far better choice than having some some megalithic monstrosity like the federal government imposing totalitarianism across all the states.

[Bradley]

There is a strategic argument to be made for greater state control, sure.

But a pro-states-rights position (as Paul often takes) is often different from the libertarian position.

[Jeff Balla]

Matt, Paul's commercial in 2007 didn't mention spending trillions of dollars nation-building and policing the world. That's different at least.

[David]

I love Ron Paul and Gary Johnson, neither is perfect, but either one would make a great POTUS, or VP.

There's one big difference though, Ron Paul is polling 10%+ in almost all the polls, while Johnson can't poll high enough to make it into the debates.

Sooooooooooooo, can we agree, as people who claim to be libertarians, that we can just get behind Ron Paul?

[NAL]

Not when "The perfect shall always be the enemy of the good" is the first commandment of the libertarian doctrine.

[bandito]

This is all "strategery." The campaign knows it has to pander to the GOP base, and to win its nomination you have to be for border control of some form. Thus, Ron Paul can say he is tough on defense, because that's what middle-of-the-road red America wants to hear. The rest of us who read further into things, instead of 30 sec TV ads, know that Paul's position on border security is much more complex. If you read his book, Liberty Defined, he has a chapter on immigration which gives quite a comprehensive outline, since this is not a simple black/white issue. I don't remember the entire plan off-hand, but the most important parts include bringing our troops home from around the world, ending welfare and other free services which create a moral hazard, no amnesty to existing illegal aliens (but no deportation), ending birthright citizenship, making the process much easier to get working visas, and quick-tracking people to citizenship instead of putting them through a process that is a bureaucratic nightmare.

[Tim Cavanaugh]

While I'm not in love with either ad, the 2012 one is a big improvement on the 2008 one.

[Tenerife]

The 2008 ad is only racist if you assume that all illegal aliens are from the same race.

[Steve for Ron Paul]

Its not "racist" at all. I'm looking at my Green Card as I type this and it clearly says on the front in big bold caps "RESIDENT ALIEN" and on the back in bold caps it says "ALIEN REGISTRATION CARD." So is it the word "illegal" that has the poster of that Youtube video pissed off, or is it the word "alien"?

[canada goose clothing]

I really admire the way you present your article. Excellent blog post. Highly informative. Thank you. If you like Parka Jackets,our online store are selling Parka for you, you are welcome.

[Mr. Mark]

Allow me to annoy everyone here.

1. Invading Iraq and Afghanistan: Fine with me.
2. Nation-building in Iraq: Fine with me.
3. Nation-building in Afghanistan: Hells-No.
4. Deporting people who are here illegally: All for it.
5. Making it easier for people to come here LEGALLY: All for it.
6. Spending a buzzillion dollars on border security: Waste of money - won't accomplish diddly-squat.
7. Penalizing employers who knowingly employ illegals: All for it.
8. Establishing a practical, secure guest-worker program: All for it.
9. Vote for Ron Paul: Not until the day after the sun expands into a massive red giant and cooks off our atmosphere in a grand finale to life on Earth.

[Steve for Ron Paul]

Well except for #6, your list clearly defines you as a typical neo-conservative. Have you bothered to read the Constitution, or do you just pick and choose what is Constitutional and what is not like Limbaugh, Levin, Hannity, et al?

[Robert]

Nobody remarking on how Ron Paul did in the Value Voters straw poll? From one perspective, as Ian Punnett remarked on "Coast to Coast AM", it's odd to think of people at such an event expressing support for the candidate who would legalize so much of what they're supposedly against. But it should always be remembered that Dr. Paul has traditionally done well with traditionalist voters. I think those voters realize there's little ability Congress has to affect vice laws, which are almost all effective at (and in the case of narcotics, in overlapping jurisdiction with) the state and local level, while on the Congress can affect, Ron Paul is the best they can hope for.

[Steve for Ron Paul]

I assume there may have been a lot of ballot box stuffing by Ron Paul types at the Value Voter straw poll, but maybe some social conservatives have read the Constitution and now understand that its not the federal governments role to impose their brand of morality on others? Hope springs eternal!

[Bill]

how, exactly, is Ron Paul's ad "racist"? he never mentions any ethnicity or even any nationality. sure, illegal aliens overwhelmingly come from Mexico, but that is of THEIR doing. are you really making the asinine contention that if someone points that out, that person is racist? it sure sounds like it. if that's what you're saying, then congrats "Reason", you're pulling the old left-wing trick of bootstrapping an argument to an accusation, which of course attempts to shut down debate by pretending even the most obvious arguments against your position are racist and reproachful. example:
A: "My position is X. If you argue against it, you're racist."
B: "Your position is wrong because _____."
A: "That's racist."
B: "How's that?"
A: "Because to argue against my position is racist."
B: "How?"
A: "Because I said so. If you try to argue otherwise, that's racist."

Ridiculous.

[Steve for Ron Paul]

So Reason couldn't find a Youtube link for the same Ron Paul campaign ad that wasn't headlined with the words "Racist Ron Paul Ad From 2008"? Thats kind of slimy Reason and this is coming from someone that became a Libertarian at 13 thanks to reading your magazine. I want you guys to continue being real, but as far as someone that has a pretty good record for speaking to the issues that Libertarians hold dearly, Ron Paul is the closest thing we've had in a lifetime that could possibly win the presidency.